Recommendations to the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023
September 2022
The 17 NGO signatories of this document wish to present our recommendations on the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023, including for stocks managed by the European Union (EU) alone and stocks shared with third countries like the United Kingdom (UK) and Norway, as well as for deep-sea stocks for 2023 and 2024 Our intent is to assist the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the Member States in making decisions on fishing opportunities that finally end overfishing, significantly contribute to restoring and/or maintaining all fish stocks above healthy levels and minimising levels of incidental captures, and safeguard marine ecosystem functions and resilience, also in light of the climate crisis Finally, rebuilding its own fish populations is also imperative to reduce the EU’s dependence on imports from uncooperative yet competitive, high IUU-risk sources such as Russia
1. Missed 2020 sustainability deadline and sluggish CFP implementation
Overfishing and destructive fishing practices have been the main cause of marine biodiversity loss for the last 40 years They also critically undermine the resilience of fish, crustaceans, corals, seabirds, marine mammals, and other wildlife to the impacts of climate change, as well as undermining their capacity to mitigate climate change 1,2 Despite the reduction in overfishing brought about by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the Northeast Atlantic during the last decade, the EU still missed the legal deadline to end overfishing and harvest all stocks sustainably by 2020 at the latest 3
3 Froese, R et al 2020 Progress Towards Ending Overfishing in the Northeast Atlantic Marine Policy Also see The Pew Charitable Trusts 2020 EU Fisheries Management Still Not in Line With ScientificAdvice
As highlighted in Box 1, many stocks remain overfished and despite the 2020 deadline the EU – both on its own and following negotiations with third countries like the UK – has continued to set Total Allowable Catches (TACs) above the best available scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
Box 1. The status quo: overfishing continues and TACs exceed scientific advice
The most recent Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report on the performance of the CFP confirms that “many stocks remain overfished and/or outside safe biological limits and the objective of the CFP to ensure that all stocks are fished at or below FMSY in 2020 has not been achieved” 4 Specifically, Baltic Sea fish populations are not improving and the Mediterranean and Black Seas remain in a dire state with overfishing continuing in 2020 for 85% of assessed stocks, whereas the proportion of Northeast Atlantic Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) assessed fish stocks subject to overfishing has decreased from around 75% in the mid-2000s to 28% more recently Moreover, many stocks remain data-limited, with unknown stock or exploitation status, while 38% of the stocks with assessed status are outside safe biological limits
TAC-setting still falls well short of the CFP’s legally binding ambition to end overfishing by 2020: according to a recent analysis of EU-only and EU/UK shared TACs,5 almost half (48%) of the assessed TACs still exceeded scientific advice for 2020, with only limited progress since then (44% for 2021 and 33% for 2022), and worse results for EU-only (38%) than EU/UK shared (31%) stocks Moreover, precautionary advice for data-limited stocks continues to be exceeded more frequently (58%) than MSY-based advice for fully assessed stocks (17%), as well as for bycatch (45%) compared to target (23%) stocks.6 The outlook presented in this year’s report by the UK’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) is even less encouraging, concluding that only around a third of the assessed TACs negotiated by the UK for 2020, 2021 and 2022 (including for example the EU/UK and EU/UK/Norway negotiations) followed scientific advice 7
Although progress has been made for some commercially important fish populations, EU Member States have failed to attain Good Environmental Status (GES) for most stocks, as required in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and a significant proportion of stocks are still poorly managed Justifications presented by EU decision-makers often revolve around a lack of scientific data, the lower economic importance of such stocks or the risk of “choking” other fisheries if scientific advice for stocks caught primarily as bycatch was followed
Deprioritising certain stocks, for example based on data limitations or bycatch issues, goes against the CFP’s key principles, in particular the MSY objective,8 which explicitly applies to all stocks, as well as the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based approach which must underpin EU fisheries management.9
4 Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Monitoring of the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-22-01) EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-51702-3, doi:10 2760/566544, JRC129080, p 9
5 ClientEarth (2022) Taking stock 2022 – areTACs set to achieve MSY?This report is currently being finalised and due to be published later this year
ClientEarth’s analysis covers thoseTACs set by the EU alone as well as those shared between the EU and the UK, excluding cases where theTAC and ICES advice do not cover the same area and are thus not directly comparable The preliminary results presented here are based on the same scope and methodology described in ClientEarth’s latest report: ClientEarth (2021) Taking stock 2021 - areTACs set to achieve MSY? November 2021
6 Ibid , results to be published later this year
7 Bell, E , Nash, R , Garnacho, E , De Oliveira, J , O’Brien, C (2022) Assessing the sustainability of fisheries catch limits negotiated by the UK for 2020 to 2022 Cefas 38 pp 2 January 2022 Note that discrepancies between the results of these two analyses are most likely due to differences in scope and parts of the methodology used, but both confirm that manyTACs continue to exceed scientific advice and progress has been limited
8 The "objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield” , by achieving “the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate [ ] at the latest by 2020 for all stocks” , in Article 2(2) of the CFPBasic Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy
9 Ibid , Articles 2(2) and 2(3)
It also undermines the EU’s claim to be a leader in sustainable fisheries management and falls short of EU obligations relating to the application of the precautionary principle as required under Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),10 and of international commitments under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the EU and the UK,11 the United Nations Fish StocksAgreement12 (UNFSA) and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 13
Overfishing persists and the CFP is a mission not yet accomplished.14 The EU, including the Commission, the Council and individual Member States, must act now to remedy this situation. The CFP’s success and the EU’s credibility are at stake.
Setting TACs not exceeding scientific advice and applying and controlling the implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO) are fundamental basics of sustainable fisheries management and must remain top priorities for decision-makers The CFP must be fully applied if the EU is to deliver on the objectives of the European Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy, improve the energy efficiency of the fishing fleet, and honour its international commitments
2. Key recommendations on setting fishing opportunities
Persistent political decisions to set fishing opportunities above scientifically advised levels perpetuate overfishing of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks, including vulnerable deep-sea stocks, and are a substantial roadblock in sustainable fisheries management We therefore call on the European Commission and on the Council to stop repeating past management errors and to show political strength of will to fulfil the EU’s commitments related to the setting of fishing opportunities Box 2 below outlines our main recommendations on the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023, and for both 2023 and 2024 for deep-sea stocks
Box 2. Key recommendations for the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023
● Set catch limits not exceeding the best available scientific advice provided by ICES, both for stocks with advice based on the ICES MSY approach and for stocks with advice based on the ICES precautionary approach for data-limited stocks. Importantly, the ICES headline advice presented at the top of the respective ICES single-stock advice document represents the maximum level of catches not to be exceeded rather than a target or absolute recommendation. Indeed certain TACs need to be set below this headline advice in order to safeguard other stocks caught in the same fisheries and/or to factor in additional pressures or ecosystem dynamics (see below and Box 4).
● Apply the precautionary approach (as defined by the UNFSA and enshrined in the CFP) when setting TACs for stocks where scientific advice based on the MSY approach is not available This includes the setting of precautionary fishing limits and additional measures to mitigate the risk of overfishing, as well as enhanced monitoring and data collection to enable the definition of MSY reference points or suitable proxies for the stocks concerned This is particularly relevant for deep-sea stocks since all of these are currently still subject to precautionary advice
10 EC, COM(2000) 1 final 2000 Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle
12 UN, Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
13 Sustainable Development Goals on life under water (SDG14) https://sustainabledevelopment un org/sdg14
14 For more aspects of CFP implementation, please see the NGO policy paper "Common Fisheries Policy: Mission Not Yet Accomplished" (2021) NGOs identify nine specific challenges in this paper (overfishing, especially in the Mediterranean Sea, the LO, harmful impacts of fishing, the transition to low-impact fisheries, harmful subsidies, regionalisation, the external dimension, and climate change) and propose a list of actionable solutions Also see Pew’s “Lessons From Implementation of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy” (2021)
11 Trade and CooperationAgreement between the European Union and the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part In force since 1 January 2021 Fisheries-related provisions are included under Heading 5● For stocks caught and assessed within a mixed fishery, factor in ICES mixed fisheries considerations to ensure that all stocks are restored and/or maintained above biomass levels capable of producing MSY. This means setting TACs for the more abundant stocks below their single-stock advice, where this is necessary to safeguard the more vulnerable stocks caught in the fishery that are in a bad or unknown state. See section 4 for further details.
● Fulfil the EU’s legal obligation to take an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, including for forage fish One fundamental step of implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is to set TACs within ecological limits, i e TACs that account not just for the population health of target species but for the effects of fisheries on non-target species and food webs as well as for relevant environmental conditions This is especially critical for forage fish (including for example Norway pout, sandeel, herring, sardines, anchovy and sprat) which have an important ecological role in supporting marine wildlife (such as seabirds, marine mammals and commercial fish species) This means setting their TACs below the advised levels where ecosystem needs are not already fully factored into the scientific advice the TACs are based on, as well as commissioning the science needed to better account for these needs. See section 4 for details.
● Set TACs below the maximum catch advice for species vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, or subject to other pressures or stressors, to provide a “climate buffer” and improve population resilience See section 4 for details
● For stocks managed through Multi-Annual Plans (MAPs), ensure that FMSY point values are not exceeded. In order to restore and maintain stocks above biomass levels capable of producing the MSY, as required by the CFP, exploitation levels need to be set below FMSY, especially for stocks that are currently still below the MSY biomass level. While the MAPs allow for the use of the upper FMSY range under certain limited conditions, TACs should therefore not exceed the FMSY point value, and should in fact be set within the lower FMSY range or even below that where this is necessary to safeguard other stocks in the same fisheries.
● In the Mediterranean Sea, Member States should tackle overcapacity in the fleet, and particularly improve control of engine power of trawlers to prevent fraud which seriously undermines the fishing effort regime Data collection and stock assessments should be improved as well
● Fully implement the Western Mediterranean MAP, particularly through the setting of annual fishing days in line with the scientific advice to tackle excessive fishing effort and achieve MSY exploitation by 202515 at the latest, timely adoption of bottom-trawling closures to protect fish nurseries and juveniles, and application of selectivity measures such as grids andT90 meshes.
● Factor in the widely recognised lack of compliance with the LO by setting TACs lower than the recommended ICES maximum catch advice, to ensure the agreed TAC does not lead to fishing mortality beyond sustainable levels 16 If quota adjustments are granted to account for previous discards, Member States should make them accessible only to vessels which demonstrate full compliance with the LO See section 5 for details
16 ClientEarth, 2020 SettingTotalAllowable Catches (TACs) in the context of the Landing Obligation July 2020
● In the case of stocks with zero catch advice, ensure that ‘bycatch TACs’ are not granted unless and until the relevant Member States put in place a bycatch reduction or rebuilding plan that effectively (1) reduces bycatch, (2) sets the relevant stocks on a pathway to recovery above levels capable of producing MSY as soon as possible, and (3) is closely monitored and enforced using remote electronic monitoring (REM) with cameras See section 6 for further details
● Do not remove TACs, as the removal of a direct limit on fishing mortality is not a sustainable management solution. In instances where a TAC has already been removed (e.g. dab and flounder and several deep-sea stocks), it should be reinstated. Removing a TAC downgrades the concerned stock from a situation where the catches are capped to limit fishing mortality, to a situation where catches are effectively unlimited Even if a stock is not directly targeted, removing a TAC could leave a stock exposed to an unsustainably high fishing mortality, such as through high discarding rates
● Prioritise and apply environmental criteria for national allocation of fishing opportunities, for example through incentivising low impact fishing practices and penalising destructive fishing practices. The European Commission should provide a precise definition of low-impact fishing, monitor compliance with Article 17 of the CFP Basic Regulation, and require the Member States to make their allocation criteria public.
● The Council should increase the transparency of the decision-making process regarding fishing opportunities and apply the recommendations of the European Ombudsman to proactively publish documents related to the adoption of the TAC Regulation at the time they are circulated to Member States or as soon as possible thereafter 17 Transparency principles should also be applied to the negotiations with the UK, Norway and other coastal states, in line with the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) 18
3. Fish stocks shared with third parties
Many decisions on fishing opportunities for fish stocks of interest for the EU need to be agreed with third parties such as the UK, Norway, or through the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Coastal States process. The EU is a NEAFC Contracting Party and has established bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding with the main Northeast Atlantic coastal fishing states, including the comprehensive TCA with the UK. While such arrangements provide management and negotiation frameworks, the setting of annual fishing opportunities still depends on annual negotiations between the EU and these third parties
To date, international agreements for Northeast Atlantic shared stocks have failed to deliver sustainable exploitation of these resources The frequent lack of agreement on stock shares, for example for mackerel, led to the setting of unilateral quotas which exceed the agreed TAC and/or the scientific advice, resulting in overfishing 19 The EU and the third parties with which it shares fish resources must become constructive partners in the fight against overfishing, biodiversity and habitat loss and climate change To achieve this, we urge the EU and coastal states involved in the setting of fishing opportunities for shared stocks to follow the recommendations in Box 3 below
19 This situation applies to key commercial stocks to the EU such as NortheastAtlantic mackerel,Atlanto-Scandian herring and blue whiting 18 UNECE 1998 Convention onAccess to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making andAccess to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)Box 3. Recommendations on fish stocks shared between the EU and third countries
● Ensure that the legal obligations of the CFP are upheld in the negotiations, i e that total fishing limits for all exploited fish populations do not exceed the scientifically advised levels in line with the CFP’s sustainability objectives and that the EU reliably demonstrates that its negotiating position was indeed fully aligned with the latter If the resulting overall fishing limits nevertheless exceed scientific advice, despite the EU’s best efforts, the EU must not make that part of its share that is the equivalent portion above the advice available to its fishers
● Implement a genuine precautionary approach (as defined by the UNFSA) in agreements on shared stocks When the available data and information are uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate, decision-makers should apply more cautious management that safeguards vulnerable or data-limited stocks and habitats, and a lack of scientific certainty cannot preclude management action
● Include provisions regarding abundance of fish populations, limit reference points for mortality, and precautionary and ecosystem considerations in agreements on shared stocks. Coastal states are urgently called upon to conserve biodiversity, minimise the impact of fishing activity on fish populations, sensitive species and on the whole ecosystem, including the seafloor, and use scientific knowledge to inform management decisions.
● Avoid unilateral processes leading to catches above scientific advice Talks on joint management should be comprehensive, including all relevant cooperative coastal states and stakeholders Where one or more of the relevant coastal states are not part of the relevant discussions, as is currently the case for Russia, quotas set and catches nevertheless taken by such parties must be factored in in a precautionary way when agreeing catch limits between the other involved coastal states The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea20 (UNCLOS) determines that collaboration on management must be multilateral when more than two coastal states have a stake in a given fish population, or fishery
● Implement the transparency obligations and rights under the Aarhus Convention in the management of shared stocks. The underpinning scientific advice, management proposals, negotiations, positions of the parties and decisions should be published for public scrutiny, with access guaranteed for all stakeholders.
● Apply long-term management as the underlying approach to fisheries management by default Although details will need to be revisited regularly, all stakeholders benefit from agreeing to, and working toward, long-term sustainable management objectives This includes stable sharing arrangements, harvest strategies that include precautionary harvest control rules for setting catch limits, a robust monitoring and evaluation scheme, control measures and the fight against IUU fishing, a periodic review process, and any necessary mechanisms to transition from previous arrangements to a new system For certain at-risk species and stocks, immediate emergency measures may be necessary
● Use published scientific advice from ICES as the basis for fisheries management decisions made by coastal states. For additional scientific input explicit standards should be set, ensuring that only the best available, peer-reviewed scientific advice from independent institutions recognised at the international level is used
● Contribute to the timely implementation of the bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding with the main Northeast Atlantic coastal fishing states Priority should be given to sustainable management objectives and principles, the precautionary approach and agreeing TACs in accordance with the best available scientific advice by ICES and governed by the MSYobjective, as required for example under theTCA
● Prioritise resolving the allocation issues of pelagic stocks (mackerel, herring, and blue whiting) with the NEAFC Contracting Parties, and ensure that the overall catches for each stock do not exceed scientific advice and in no case lead to unilateral quota increases.
● Where the EU and the UK fail to reach an agreement on TACs for shared stocks by the 20th of December 2022, provisional unilateral TACs must not exceed the respective party’s share of the maximum catch level advised by ICES, as per Article 499(2) of the TCA This represents an important safeguard to ensure that stocks are not fished unsustainably where no agreement is reached
4. Mixed fisheries and ecosystem considerations
Achieving sustainable exploitation of each stock in fisheries targeting multiple species (mixed fisheries) can represent challenges, particularly when dealing with overfished stocks (see section 6 below) Demersal EU fisheries are an illustrative example of this issue with a diversity of species and fisheries subject to numerous biological and technical interactions
So far, EU management decisions for mixed fisheries have mostly prioritised the exploitation of the most productive and/or economically profitable stocks, at the expense of the most vulnerable stocks or associated species This approach perpetuates the depletion of vulnerable populations for the sake of avoiding short-term fisheries closures, when the focus should be on rebuilding depleted stocks which would support thriving fisheries in the long-term without the constant threat of “choking”, thanks to a more resilient, productive ecosystem
There are multiple measures that can be implemented simultaneously to mitigate these challenges and reduce fishing pressure where necessary. Using a combination of the tools below (Box 4), fishers and managers should be able to reduce the likelihood and mitigate the impact of “choke” situations whilst still fishing within MSY limits. The EU should ensure that all these options are used to their maximum effect, particularly for at-risk species and stocks, both for stocks managed by the EU alone and stocks shared with third countries.
Moreover, the EU must deliver on its legal requirement to apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. In the context of fishing opportunities, this means that TAC decisions must reflect the ecosystem role of harvested species (both targeted and taken as bycatch), including their relationship to other species in the food web (for example as forage fish for seabirds or marine mammals), and the ecological consequences of target species exploitation. Similarly, additional pressures or stressors impacting on harvested stocks or the ecosystem they live in, such as consequences of the climate crisis, must be factored in when setting fishing limits. In combination with the fundamental precautionary approach, this means setting certain TACs below the single-stock advice, especially in the face of uncertainty and data limitations To adequately account for mixed fisheries interactions as well as ecosystem dynamics, we therefore urge EU decision-makers to follow the recommendations in Box 4 below
Box 4. Recommendations for TAC-setting in a mixed fisheries and ecosystem context
● Use mixed fishery MSY considerations provided by ICES to assess the compatibility of single-stock TACs with the ambition to safeguard the most vulnerable stock(s) caught in the fishery When seeking mixed fisheries scenarios from ICES, options geared towards the recovery of depleted stocks should be prioritised rather than those focusing on the full exploitation of the more abundant stocks in the fishery
● Set TACs for more abundant stocks in mixed fisheries below the ICES single-stock maximum catch advice to account for mixed fishery interactions, and to ensure that no stocks in the fishery are fished above scientific advice.
● Adopt spatial measures to reduce fishing pressure on more vulnerable species, including temporary and permanent closures, real-time closures and ‘move-on’rules
● Ensure independent, reliable monitoring and full documentation of catches through observer coverage and Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras to better understand catch composition in mixed fisheries and use this to inform further fisheries management.
● Mandate the use of the best available technology and practices to improve the selectivity of fishing operations A list of authorised mitigation measures should be made available for each active mixed fishery to support fishers Inclusion of selectivity measures employed during fishing activity should be included within the legal requirement of logbook reporting to track progress and place the burden of proof onto fishers to prove they are doing everything possible and practicable to minimise unwanted catches
● Ensure that TAC decisions are based on scientific advice that incorporates ecosystem considerations, for example regarding predator-prey interactions (and commission such advice where these considerations are not yet fully reflected). We note the current use by ICES of multispecies modelling to account for food web dynamics in natural mortality values in the assessments of several species. However, there are concerns that this approach does not ensure that a sufficiently large biomass of forage fish (and other fish forming part of the prey of dependent predators) remains in the water or areas closed to fishing are fully accounted for21 to allow dependent predators to meet their needs In light of various political commitments around maintaining food web integrity, conserving marine birds and mammals, and in line with the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based approach, decision-makers should therefore:
(1) Ensure there are additional safeguards to guarantee that fisheries do not impact on the population health of dependent predators, particularly seabirds;
(2) Set TACs for forage fish below the relevant headline advice in order to account for ecosystem needs; and
(3) Request that ICES explores more ecologically robust alternative reference points, which set safe ecological limits for predators by accounting for not only the fish biomass predators consume (i e their physiological requirements) when breeding successfully, but, also the much greater biomass they require access to in order to do so (i e their ecological requirements) 22
● Set TACs below the single-stock advice where stocks are subject to additional pressures or stressors such as climate-related impacts that are not (yet) explicitly factored into the advice, and support the incorporation of ecosystem considerations into ICES advice on sustainable catches This is important to account for potential cumulative impacts of fisheries and other aspects like environmental factors In line with the precautionary approach, more caution should be exercised, where information about additional pressures is limited or uncertain, meaning thatTACs should be set further below the advice as an additional buffer
5. Landing obligation challenges
Since the LO came fully into force in 2019, TACs have been set based on total catch advice (albeit with some deductions for exempted discards), rather than landings advice as they used to before 2015 Despite the European Commission’s efforts, it is broadly recognised that non-compliance across Member States is widespread, unreported discarding continues and the LO is not effectively controlled and enforced 23 Setting TACs based on catch rather than landings advice, while illegal discarding continues, allows for unsustainable catches potentially far beyond scientific advice 24 Poorly implementing the LO poses significant risks to sustainable fisheries in the EU and decisive steps must be taken to remedy the current situation
Furthermore, there are industry voices who claim that failures of implementation mean that the policy is unworkable, and that a reform of the CFP should eliminate the LO The shared NGO position is that the LO has not been given a chance to work and that the underlying problems (such as a lack of fishing gear selectivity and effective avoidance of unwanted catches) can and must be tackled under the existing framework. To avoid negative effects of the failure in the implementation of the LO on the setting of sustainable catch limits we make the following recommendations in Box 5 below.
Box 5. Recommendations regarding TAC-setting in the context of the LO
● Factor in poor compliance with the LO by proposing and setting TACs lower than the ICES maximum catch advice, to ensure that the agreed TACs do not lead to fishing mortality beyond sustainable levels. So-called quota “top-ups”, intended to cover catches that used to be discarded prior to the LO and now have to be landed, should not be applied while the LO is not effectively controlled. If such top-ups nevertheless continue to be used, then TAC deductions need to be made in order to account for continued discards covered by LO exemptions. Such deductions need to be based on robust discard estimates, and where discard information is limited or uncertain, larger deductions must be applied in line with the precautionary approach.
● Make access to quota “top-ups” conditional on demonstrated vessel compliance with the LO and full catch documentation, notably through REM and/or appropriate independent observer coverage Such top-ups were intended to allow fishers to legally land catches that would have been discarded prior to the LO, and therefore must not be made available to vessels that are not demonstrably complying with the LO
● Introduce robust controls and full catch documentation using remote electronic and camera monitoring CCTV projects, such as the ongoing Danish camera project in the demersal fishery in the Kattegat, show that CCTV can be effectively used to ensure compliance with the LO 25 Illegal discarding should be treated as a serious infringement
● Create and promote quota redistribution solutions, beyond traditional swaps, to avoid closing fisheries if quota is available elsewhere.
6. Depleted stocks with zero or very low catch advice
The most recent scientific advice published by ICES highlights the ongoing severely depleted status of a number of key fish stocks, many of which are now jointly managed with the UK Examples include West of Scotland cod, Celtic Sea cod, Irish Sea whiting and cod, herring in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and southwest of Ireland, and North Sea cod among others 26 All of these stocks are below the biomass limit reference point, and for most of them, the ICES advice is for a strong reduction in catches, or even zero catch With climate change also likely to be affecting the resilience of some fish populations,27 effective efforts to recover these stocks are needed more urgently than ever 28
We are extremely concerned that limited effort has been made by all parties involved to apply effective recovery measures while TACs continue to exceed scientific advice These stocks are a public resource and recovering them is a necessity to contribute to a healthy resilient marine ecosystem and to provide long-term benefits to dependent coastal communities
Managing mixed fisheries involving stocks subject to zero or very low catch advice presents a number of challenges However, there are steps that can be taken to reduce unwanted catches and minimise the impacts of fishing on depleted stocks With specific regard to low or zero catch advice stocks, we provide the following recommendations in Box 6 below, complementing those presented in Box 4 above regarding mixed fisheries
Box 6. Recommendations regarding depleted stocks with zero or low catch advice
● Follow the scientific advice provided by ICES and set catch limits for depleted stocks accordingly. The EU should prioritise the recovery of depleted stocks over short term profit maximisation, as this is in the long-term interest of both the marine environment and coastal communities.
● Prioritise the recovery of depleted stocks particularly in cases where “bycatch TACs” are adopted, and do not allow catches unless and until the relevant management authority has a rebuilding plan or a multi-year management strategy in place with clear recovery targets, timeframes and bycatch reduction strategies, including spatial measures (such as temporary and permanent closures) and selective gears, to achieve them
27 Drinkwater, K F 2005 The response ofAtlantic cod (
ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 62, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 1327–1337 https://doi org/10 1016/j icesjms 2005 05 015
28 Sumaila, U R andTai,TC 2020 End Overfishing and Increase the Resilience of the Ocean to
Frontiers in Marine Science https://doi org/10 3389/fmars 2020 00523
Climate Change Gadus morhua) to future climate change 26 ICES advice for the referred depleted stocks: West of Scotland cod, Celtic Sea cod, Irish Sea whiting, Irish Sea cod, herring in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and southwest of Ireland, North Sea cod● Ensure that fisheries using “bycatch TACs” are fully documented using REM and/or appropriate independent observer coverage, and strong remedial measures are in place This is particularly crucial in light of long-standing concerns about the lack of compliance with the LO, as well as indications in the ICES advice for several depleted stocks that the relevantTACs have regularly been overshot in the past (e g for North Sea cod)
● Prioritise the recovery needs of these stocks in management measures for mixed fisheries by ensuring that catches under no circumstances exceed the scientific advice, rather than allowing the full exploitation of the possible fishing opportunities of healthy stocks in the same fishery 29 As highlighted in Box 4, this means setting TACs for the more abundant stocks caught in the same fisheries (such as Norway lobster in the Irish Sea or haddock in the North Sea) below their single-stock advice in order to safeguard depleted stocks (such as Irish Sea whiting and cod or North Sea cod)
● Request ICES to provide additional mixed fisheries scientific catch scenarios focusing on options which allow vulnerable stocks to rebuild to inform fisheries management of the actions and/or reductions in TACs for healthy stocks which would be required. Evaluation of such scenarios could present options which avoid immediate fisheries closures while still allowing depleted stocks to recover within an ambitious timeframe.
7. Stocks not managed by a TAC
A few stocks which are currently not subject to a TAC have been exploited unsustainably for several years. Examples include the critically endangered European eel, European sea bass in the North Sea, Irish Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea and sardine in the Cantabrian Sea and Iberian Atlantic waters. In addition, very few management options have been explored for minimising bycatch of vulnerable species like sharks.
The MSY objective in Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation applies to all harvested stocks, whether subject to a TAC or not Likewise, both the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based approach are fundamental principles that must underpin fisheries management under the CFP in general It is crucial that effective stock-specific measures be introduced, particularly where no TAC is in place to regulate fishing levels, to ensure that vulnerable stocks are restored above sustainable levels, in line with legal requirements We therefore provide the following recommendations in Box 7 below for stocks not managed by aTAC
Box 7. Recommendations for stocks not managed by a TAC
● Introduce effective management measures for all non-TAC stocks that aim to ensure each stock’s recovery and sustainable exploitation in line with the CFP’s objectives, for example through recovery plans In any cases where TACs have been removed and not reinstated, a quantitative evaluation of potential alternative management measures and their efficiency should be urgently conducted, as recommended by ICES for several deep-sea stocks in 2018,30 to ensure the CFP’s objectives are met for the affected stocks 30 ICES (2018): EU request for ICES to provide advice on a revision of the contribution ofTACs to fisheries management and stock conservation for selected deep-water stocks ICESAdvice: Special Requests Report https://doi org/10 17895/ices pub 4493
● Assess and minimise the impact of fisheries for stocks subject to TACs on non-quota species and other marine life For example, high numbers of dab are caught in the plaice and sole fishery in the North Sea, but mostly discarded, with a discard rate of 89% This should be addressed by setting TACs for the relevant target stocks at lower levels and implementing effective bycatch reduction measures to minimise the impact on associated non-quota stocks
● Ensure that the prohibited species list in the TAC and quota regulation has clear criteria for uplisting and removal of species. There is a clear need for transparent criteria for the listing of prohibited species to ensure that species that are in need of protection can be listed and species that have recovered can be sustainably exploited again
● Continue implementing measures to manage bycatches of sea bass in commercial fisheries and to manage recreational removals of sea bass Given that the spawning stock biomass is projected to decrease based on ICES headline advice, catches should be limited to well below the headline advice to allow for a continued recovery of the stock
● Add European eel to the prohibited species list, stop all targeted fishing for eel, both commercial and recreational, and urgently introduce measures that address habitat loss and water quality in priority areas European eel is a shared stock with UK and other countries and is subject to targeted fishing in both the EU and many other countries, despite being listed as Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 31 The most recent scientific advice from ICES on fishing opportunities for eel,32 provided to both the EU and the UK, is zero catch of all life stages and in all habitats, including eels used for restocking and aquaculture It also includes advice for bringing all other anthropogenic mortalities as close to zero as possible, highlighting the need to protect eels more generally to support recovery of the population
8. Deep-sea stocks
In addition to the Northeast Atlantic TACs, the EU – in some cases in cooperation with the UK – will set TACs for deep-sea stocks for 2023 and 2024. Scientists indicate that deep-sea fish populations in European waters are either depleted or lacking information to assess their status. Deep-sea fish live in rarely disturbed environments and tend to be slow-growing, late maturing and long-lived. The biological characteristics of most deep-sea species and the ecosystems they inhabit make them exceptionally vulnerable to over-exploitation and poorly adapted to sustained fishing pressure, whether targeted or not, since their productivity and recovery capacity are very limited Deep-sea habitats themselves, including potential vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), are highly vulnerable to damage from deep-sea fishing - damage that can take centuries for habitats to recover from Given these characteristics, deep-sea species and ecosystems should be managed with significant precaution, instead of being treated as by-products of target fisheries for other stocks and jeopardised as collateral damage
However, fisheries ministers have repeatedly set TACs above the precautionary advice provided by ICES, or even removed TACs for many of these vulnerable stocks, without successful efforts to date to fill the data gaps that still prevent full MSY-based stock assessments. This is contrary to the CFP’s sustainability requirements, including the precautionary approach, which requires more caution when data are lacking or uncertain, and the ecosystem-based approach of minimising negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem.
It also fails to deliver on the EU’s international commitments to manage deep-sea fisheries in a manner consistent with the global standard established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) 33 This standard requires EU regulations to contain, amongst other things, obligations to: end overfishing of deep-sea species; rebuild depleted stocks; prevent by-catch of vulnerable species; and protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from the adverse impacts of fishing for deep-sea species.
Box 8. Recommendations for deep-sea stocks
Many of the recommendations covered in more detail throughout Boxes 2 to 7 in this document directly apply to deep-sea stocks, particularly regarding the following:
● The setting of TACs in line with or (where necessary for example to reflect mixed fisheries or ecosystem dynamics) below the scientific precautionary advice;
● The application of the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and the need to prioritise the protection and recovery of vulnerable and/or depleted stocks;
● The concerns around TAC removal and the need for the implementation and evaluation of effective recovery measures to ensure the CFP’s objectives are met; and
● The need to urgently improve data collection and address current data gaps in order to enable the definition of MSYreference points or suitable proxies for the stocks concerned.
In addition to the above, recognising the particular vulnerability of deep-sea species and ecosystems, we recommend that the EU:
● Ensures the swift implementation of the adopted implementing act on the closure of vulnerable areas to fishing gears which touch the seabed, an act which aims to protect VMEs;34
● Sets zero TACs for deep-sea species that are recognised as vulnerable, threatened or endangered, such as roundnose grenadier which is listed as Critically Endangered in the North Atlantic on the IUCN Red List; and
● Sets bycatch quotas at zero for any deep-sea species recognised as vulnerable, threatened or endangered, and implements effective mandatory bycatch mitigation measures for deep-sea sharks that are on the prohibited species list
Environmental organisations remain committed to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy We will continue to scrutinise the progress in ending overfishing as we urge the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the Member States to implement the CFP and finally deliver the EU’s transition to fully sustainable fisheries
NGO contact persons
BirdWatch Ireland: Sinéad Loughran, Marine Policy &Advocacy Officer, sloughran@birdwatchireland.ie
Blue Marine Foundation: Jonny Hughes, Senior Policy Manager, jonny@bluemarinefoundation.com
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND): Valeska Diemel, Fisheries Policy Officer, valeska diemel@bund net 34 https://oceans-and-fisheries
ClientEarth: Jenni Grossmann, Science and PolicyAdvisor - Fisheries, jgrossmann@clientearth org
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation: Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer, Senior Marine Policy Advisor, Cathrine@dn dk
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition: Matthew Gianni, Policy and PoliticalAdvisor, matthewgianni@gmail.com
Des Requins et Des Hommes (DRDH): Armelle Jung, Scientific Projects Lead, armelle@desrequinsetdeshommes.org
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH): Dr Katja Hockun, Policy Advisor Marine Conservation, hockun@duh de Dutch Elasmobranch Society: Irene Kingma, Strategy and Policy Lead, kingma@elasmobranch nl
Ecologistas enAcción: Cecilia del Castillo Moro, Fisheries Policy Officer, pesca@ecologistasenaccion.org
Fair Seas: Donal Griffin: Marine Policy Officer, donal@fairseas.ie
The Fisheries Secretariat: Sara Söderström, Fisheries Policy Officer, sara soderstrom@fishsec org
France Nature Environnement (FNE): Clio Bouillard, Fisheries PolicyAdvisor, clio bouillard@fne asso fr
Oceana: Agnes Lisik, Senior PolicyAdvisor, alisik@oceana.org
Our Fish: Rebecca Hubbard, Program Director, rebecca@our.fish
Sciaena: Gonçalo Carvalho, Executive Coordinator, gcarvalho@sciaena org
SeasAt Risk: ChristineAdams, Fisheries Policy Officer, cadams@seas-at-risk org